From: "Jewish History, Jewish Religion:

The Weight of Three Thousand Years"

by Professor Israel Shahak

AS
EXPLAINED in Chapter 3, the Halakhah,
that is the legal system of classical Judaism - as practiced by
virtually all Jews from the 9th century to the end of the 18th
and as maintained to this very day in the form of Orthodox
Judaism - is based primarily on the Babylonian Talmud. However,
because of the unwieldy complexity of the legal disputations
recorded in the Talmud, more manageable codifications of talmudic
laws became necessary and were indeed compiled by successive
generations of rabbinical scholars. Some of these have acquired
great authority and are in general use. For this reasons we shall
refer for the most part to such compilations (and their most
reputable commentaries) rather than directly to the Talmud. It is
however correct to assume that the compilation referred to
reproduces faithfully the meaning of the talmudic text and the
additions made by later scholars on the basis of that meaning.

The earliest code of talmudic law
which is still of major importance is the Misbneh Tarab written
by Moses Maimonides in the late 12th century. The most
authoritative code, widely used to date as a handbook, is the
Shulhan 'Arukh composed by R. Yosef Karo in the late 16th century
as a popular condensation of his own much more voluminous Beys
Yosef which was intended for the advanced scholar. The Shulhan
'Arukh is much commented upon; in addition to classical
commentaries dating from the 17th century, there is an important
20th century one, Mishnab Berurab. Finally, the Talmudic
Encyclopedia - a modern compilation published in Israel from the
1950s and edited by the country's greatest Orthodox rabbinical
scholars - is a good compendium of the whole talmudic literature.

Murder and Genocide

ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH religion, the murder of a Jew
is a capital offense and one of the three most heinous sins (the
other two being idolatry and adultery). Jewish religious courts
and secular authorities are commanded to punish, even beyond the
limits of the ordinary administration of justice, anyone guilty
of murdering a Jew. A Jew who indirectly causes the death of
another Jew is, however, only guilty of what talmudic law calls a
sin against the 'laws of Heaven', to be punished by God rather
than by man.

When the victim is a Gentile, the
position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is
guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable
by a court.1 To cause
indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.2

Thus, one of the two most important
commentators on the Shulhan Arukh explains that when it comes to
a Gentile, 'one must not lift one's hand to harm him, but one may
harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he
had fallen into a crevice .., there is no prohibition here,
because it was not done directly:3
He points out, however, that an act leading indirectly to a
Gentile's death is forbidden if it may cause the spread of
hostility towards Jews.4

A Gentile murderer who happens to be
under Jewish jurisdiction must be executed whether the victim was
Jewish or not. However, if the victim was Gentile and the
murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished.5

All this has a direct and practical
relevance to the realities of the State of Israel. Although the
state's criminal laws make no distinction between Jew and
Gentile, such distinction is certainly made by Orthodox rabbis,
who in guiding their flock follow the Halakhah. Of special
importance is the advice they give to religious soldiers.

Since even the minimal interdiction
against murdering a Gentile outright applies only to 'Gentiles
with whom we [the Jews] are not at war', various rabbinical
commentators in the past drew the logical conclusion that in
wartime all Gentiles belonging to a hostile population may, or
even should be killed.6
Since 1973 this doctrine is being publicly propagated for the
guidance of religious Israeli soldiers. The first such official
exhortation was included in a booklet published by the Central
Region Command of the Israeli Army, whose area includes the West
Bank. In this booklet the Command's Chief Chaplain writes:

When our forces come across civilians during a war
or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no
certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our
forces, then according to the Halakhah they may and even
should be killed ... Under no circumstances should an Arab be
trusted, even if he makes an impression of being civilized
... In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed
and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good
civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good.7

The same doctrine is expounded in
the following exchange of letters between a young Israeli soldier
and his rabbi, published in the yearbook of one of the country's
most prestigious religious colleges, Midrashiyyat No'am, where
many leaders and activists of the National Religious Party and
Gush Emunim have been educated.8

Letter from the soldier Moshe to
Rabbi Sbipn 'on Weiser '

With God's help, to His Honor, my dear Rabbi,

'First I would like to ask how you and your family
are. I hope all is well. I am, thank God, feeling well. A
long time I have not written. Please forgive me. Sometimes I
recall the verse "when shall I come and appear before
God?'9
I hope, without being certain, that I shall come during one
of the leaves. I must do so.

'In one of the discussions in our group, there was
a debate about the "purity of weapons" and we
discussed whether it is permitted to kill unarmed men - or
women and children? Or perhaps we should take revenge on the
Arabs? And then everyone answered according to his own
understanding. I could not arrive at a clear decision,
whether Arabs should be treated like the Amalekites, meaning
that one is permitted to murder [sic ] them until their
remembrance is blotted out from under heaven,10
or perhaps one should do as in a just war, in which one kills
only the soldiers?

'A second problem I have is whether I am permitted
to put myself in danger by allowing a woman to stay alive?
For there have been cases when women threw hand grenades. Or
am I permitted to give water to an Arab who put his hand up?
For there may be reason to fear that he only means to deceive
me and will kill me, and such things have happened.

'I conclude with a warm greeting to the rabbi and
all his family. - Moshe.'

Reply of Shim'on Weiser' to Moshe

'With the help of Heaven. Dear Moshe, Greetings.

'I am starting this letter this evening although I
know I cannot finish it this evening, both because I am busy
and because I would like to make it a long letter, to answer
your questions in full, for which purpose I shall have to
copy out some of the sayings of our sages, of blessed memory,
and interpret them.11

'The non-Jewish nations have a custom according to
which war has its own rules, like those of a game, like the
rules of football or basketball. But according to the sayings
of our sages, of blessed memory, [ ... ] war for us is not a
game but a vital necessity, and only by this standard must we
decide how to wage it. On the one hand .... ] we seem to
learn that if a Jew murders a Gentile, he is regarded as a
murderer and, except for the fact that no court has the right
to punish him, the gravity of the deed is like that of any
other murder. But we find in the very same authorities in
another place [ ... that Rabbi Shim'on used to say: "The
best of Gentiles - kill him; the best of snakes dash out its
brains."

'It might perhaps be argued that the expression
"kill" in the saying of R. Shim'on is only
figurative and should not be taken literally but as meaning
"oppress" or some similar attitude, and in this way
we also avoid a contradiction with the authorities quoted
earlier. Or one might argue that this saying, though meant
literally, is [merely] his own personal opinion, disputed by
other sages [quoted earlier]. But we find the true
explanation in the Tosalot.12
There [ .... ] we learn the following comment on the talmudic
pronouncement that Gentiles who fall into a well should not
be helped out, but neither should they be pushed into the
well to be killed, which means that they should neither be
saved from death nor killed directly. And the Tosafot write
as follows:

"And if it is queried [because] in another
place it was said The best of Gentiles - kill him, then the
answer is that this [saying] is meant for wartime." [
... ]

'According to the commentators of the Tosafot, a
distinction must be made between wartime and peace, so that
although during peace time it is forbidden to kill Gentiles,
in a case that occurs in wartime it is a mitzvah [imperative,
religious duty] to kill them.[...]

'And this is the difference between a Jew and a
Gentile: although the rule "Whoever comes to kill you,
kill him first" applies to a Jew, as was said in
Tractate Sanhedrin [of the Talmud], page 72a, still it only
applies to him if there is [actual] ground to fear that he is
coming to kill you. But a Gentile during wartime is usually
to be presumed so, except when it is quite clear that he has
no evil intent. This is the rule of "purity of
weapons" according to the Halakhah - and not the alien
conception which is now accepted in the Israeli army and
which has been the cause of many [Jewish] casualties. I
enclose a newspaper cutting with the speech made last week in
the Knesset by Rabbi Kalman Kahana, which shows in a very
lifelike - and also painful - way how this "purity of
weapons" has caused deaths.

'I conclude here, hoping that you will not find
the length of this letter irksome. This subject was being
discussed even without your letter, but your letter caused me
to write up the whole matter.

'Be in peace, you and all Jews, and [I hope to]
see you soon, as you say. Yours - Shim'on.

Reply of Moshe to R. Shim'on Weiser

'To His Honor, my dear Rabbi,

'First I hope that you and your family are in
health and are all right.

'I have received your long letter and am grateful
for your personal watch over me, for I assume that you write
to many, and most of your time is taken up with your studies
in your own program.

'Therefore my thanks to you are doubly deep.

'As for the letter itself, I have understood it as
follows:

'In wartime I am not merely permitted, but
enjoined to kill every Arab man and woman whom I chance upon,
if there is reason to fear that they help in the war against
us, directly or indirectly. And as far as I am concerned I
have to kill them even if that might result in an involvement
with the military law. I think that this matter of the purity
of weapons should be transmitted to educational institutions,
at least the religious ones, so that they should have a
position about this subject and so that they will not wander
in the broad fields of "logic", especially on this
subject; and the rule has to be explained as it should be
followed in practice. For, I am sorry to say, I have seen
different types of "logic" here even among the
religious comrades. I do hope that you shall be active in
this, so that our boys will know the line of their ancestors
clearly and unambiguously.

'I conclude here, hoping that when the [training]
course ends, in about a month, I shall be able to come to the
yeshivah [talmudic college]. Greetings - Moshe.'

Of course, this doctrine of the
Halakhah on murder clashes, in principle, not only with Israel's
criminal law but also - as hinted in the letters just quoted -
with official military standing regulations. However, there can
be little doubt that in practice this doctrine does exert an
influence on the administration of justice, especially by
military authorities. The fact is that in all cases where Jews
have, in a military or paramilitary context, murdered Arab
non-combatants - including cases of mass murder such as that in
Kafr Qasim in 1956 - the murderers, if not let off altogether,
received extremely light sentences or won far-reaching
remissions, reducing their punishment to next to nothing.13

Saving of Life

THIS SUBJECT - the supreme value of human life and the
obligation of every human being to do the outmost to save the
life of a fellow human - is of obvious importance in itself. It
is also of particular interest in a Jewish context, in view of
the fact that since the Second World War Jewish opinion has - in
some cases justly, in others unjustly - condemned 'the whole
world' or at least all Europe for standing by when Jews were
being massacred. Let us therefore examine what the Halakhah has
to say on this subject.

According to the Halakhah, the duty
to save the life of a fellow Jew is paramount.14
It supersedes all other religious obligations and interdictions,
excepting only the prohibitions against the three most heinous
sins of adultery (including incest), murder and idolatry.

As for Gentiles, the basic talmudic
principle is that their lives must not be saved, although it is
also forbidden to murder them outright. 15
The Talmud itself expresses this in the maxim 'Gentiles are
neither to be lifted [out of a well] nor hauled down [into it]'.
Maimonides16 explains:

"As for Gentiles with whom
we are not at war ... their death must not be caused, but it
is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death;
if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he
should not be rescued, for it is written: 'neither shalt thou
stand against the blood of thy fellow'17
- but [a Gentile] is not thy fellow."

In particular, a Jewish doctor must
not treat a Gentile patient. Maimonides - himself an illustrious
physician - is quite explicit on this; in another passage18
he repeats the distinction between 'thy fellow' and a Gentile,
and concludes: 'and from this learn ye, that it is forbidden to
heal a Gentile even for payment...'

However, the refusal of a Jew -
particularly a Jewish doctor - to save the life of a Gentile may,
if it becomes known, antagonize powerful Gentiles and so put Jews
in danger. Where such danger exists, the obligation to avert it
supersedes the ban on helping the Gentile. Thus Maimonides
continues: ' ... but if you fear him or his hostility, cure him
for payment, though you are forbidden to do so without payment.'
In fact, Maimonides himself was Saladin's personal physician. His
insistence on demanding payment - presumably in order to make
sure that the act is not one of human charity but an unavoidable
duty - is however not absolute. For in another passage he allows
Gentile whose hostility is feared to be treated 'even gratis, if
it is unavoidable'.

The whole doctrine - the ban on
saving a Gentile's life or healing him, and the suspension of
this ban in cases where there is fear of hostility - is repeated
(virtually verbatim) by other major authorities, including the
14th century Arba'ah Turirn and Karo's Beyt Yosef and Shulhan
'Arukh.19 Beyt Yosef
adds, quoting Maimonides: 'And it is permissible to try out a
drug on a heathen, if this serves a purpose'; and this is
repeated also by the famous R. Moses Isserles.

The consensus of halakhic
authorities is that the term 'Gentiles' in the above doctrine
refers to all non-Jews. A lone voice of dissent is that of R.
Moses Rivkes, author of a minor commentary on the Shulhan Arukh,
who writes.20

Our sages only said this about
heathens, who in their day worshipped idols and did not believe
in the Jewish Exodus from Egypt or in the creation of the world
ex nihilo. But the Gentiles in whose [protective] shade we, the
people of Israel, are exiled and among whom we are scattered do
believe in the creation of the world ex nihilo and in the Exodus
and in several principles of our own religion and they pray to
the Creator of heaven and earth ... Not only is there no
interdiction against helping them, but we are even obliged to
pray for their safety.

This passage, dating from the second
half of the 17th century, is a favorite quote of apologetic
scholars.21 Actually,
it does not go nearly as far as the apologetics pretend, for it
advocates removing the ban on saving a Gentile's life, rather
than making it mandatory as in the case of a Jew; and even this
liberality extends only to Christians and Muslims but not the
majority of human beings. Rather, what it does show is that there
was a way in which the harsh doctrine of the Halakhah could have
been progressively liberalized. But as a matter of fact the
majority of later halakhic authorities, far from extending
Rivkes' leniency to other human groups, have rejected it
altogether.

Desecrating the Sabbath to Save Life

DESECRATING THE SABBATH - that is, doing work that
would otherwise be banned on Saturday - becomes a duty when the
need to save a Jew's life demands it.

The problem of saving a Gentile's
life on the sabbath is not raised in the Talmud as a main issue,
since it is in any case forbidden even on a weekday; it does
however enter as a complicating factor in two connections.

First, there is a problem where a
group of people are in danger, and it is possible (but not
certain) that there is at least one Jew among them: should the
sabbath be desecrated in order to save them? There is an
extensive discussion of such cases. Following earlier
authorities, including Maimonides and the Talmud itself, the
Shulhan Arukh 22 decides
these matters according to the weight of probabilities. For
example, suppose nine Gentiles and one Jew live in the same
building. One Saturday the building collapses; one of the ten -
it is not known which one - is away, but the other nine are
trapped under the rubble. Should the rubble be cleared, thus
desecrating the sabbath, seeing that the Jew may not be under it
(he may have been the one that got away)? The Shulhan 'Arukh says
that it should, presumably because the odds that the Jew is under
the rubble are high (nine to one). But now suppose that nine have
got away and only one - again, it is not known which one - is
trapped. Then there is no duty to clear the rubble, presumably
because this time there are long odds (nine to one) against the
Jew being the person trapped. Similarly: 'If a boat containing
some Jews is seen to be in peril upon the sea, it is a duty
incumbent upon all to desecrate the sabbath in order to save it.'
However, the great R. 'Aqiva Eiger (died 1837) comments that this
applies only 'when it is known that there are Jews on board. But
... if nothing at all is known about the identity of those on
board, [the sabbath] must not be desecrated, for one acts
according to [the weight of probabilities, and] the majority of
people in the world are Gentiles.23
Thus, since there are very long odds against any of the
passengers being Jewish, they must be allowed to drown.

Secondly, the provision that a
Gentile may be saved or cared for in order to avert the danger of
hostility is curtailed on the sabbath. A Jew called upon to help
a Gentile on a weekday may have to comply because to admit that
he is not allowed, in principle, to save the life of a non-Jew
would be to invite hostility. But on Saturday the Jew can use
sabbath observance as a plausible excuse. A paradigmatic case
discussed at length in the Talmud24
is that of a Jewish midwife invited to help a Gentile woman in
childbirth. The upshot is that the midwife is allowed to help on
a weekday 'for fear of hostility', but on the sabbath she must
not do so, because she can excuse herself by saying: 'We are
allowed to desecrate the sabbath only for our own, who observe
the sabbath, but for your people, who do not keep the sabbath, we
are not allowed to desecrate it.' Is this explanation a genuine
one or merely an excuse? Maimonides clearly thinks that it is
just an excuse, which can be used even if the task that the
midwife is invited to do does not actually involve any
desecration of the sabbath. Presumably, the excuse will work just
as well even in this case, because Gentiles are generally in the
dark as to precisely which kinds of work are banned for Jews on
the sabbath. At any rate, he decrees: 'A Gentile woman must not
be helped in childbirth on the sabbath, even for payment; nor
must one fear hostility, even when [such help involves] no
desecration of the sabbath.' The Shulhan 'Arukh decrees likewise.25

Nevertheless, this sort of excuse
could not always be relied upon to do the trick and avert Gentile
hostility. Therefore certain important rabbinical authorities had
to relax the rules to some extent and allowed Jewish doctors to
treat Gentiles on the sabbath even if this involved doing certain
types of work normally banned on that day. This partial
relaxation applied particularly to rich and powerful Gentile
patients, who could not be fobbed off so easily and whose
hostility could be dangerous.

Thus, R. Yo'el Sirkis, author of
Bayit Hadash and one of the greatest rabbis of his time (Poland,
17th century), decided that 'mayors, petty nobles and
aristocrats' should be treated on the sabbath, because of the
fear of their hostility which involves 'some danger'. But in
other cases, especially when the Gentile can be fobbed off with
an evasive excuse, a Jewish doctor would commit 'an unbearable
sin' by treating him on the sabbath. Later in the same century, a
similar verdict was given in the French city of Metz, whose two
parts were connected by a pontoon bridge. Jews are not normally
allowed to cross such a bridge on the sabbath, but the rabbi of
Metz decided that a Jewish doctor may nevertheless do so 'if he
is called to the great governor': since the doctor is known to
cross the bridge for the sake of his Jewish patients, the
governor's hostility could be aroused if the doctor refused to do
so for his sake. Under the authoritarian rule of Louis XIV, it
was evidently important to have the goodwill of his intendant;
the feelings of lesser Gentiles were of little importance.26

Hokhrnat Shloinoh, a 19th century
commentary on the Shulhan 'Arukh, mentions a similarly strict
interpretation of the concept 'hostility' in connection with the
Karaites, a small heretical Jewish sect. According to this view,
their lives must not be saved if that would involve desecration
of the sabbath, 'for "hostility" applies only to the
heathen, who are many against us, and we are delivered into their
hands .. But the Karaites are few and we are not delivered into
their hands, [so] the fear of hostility does not apply to them at
all.'27 In fact,
the absolute ban on desecrating the sabbath in order to save the
life of a Karaite is still in force today, as we shall see.

The whole subject is extensively
discussed in the responsa of R. Moshe Sofer - better known as
'Ilatam Sofer' - the famous rabbi of Pressburg (Bratislava) who
died in 1832. His conclusions are of more than historical
interest, since in 1966 one of his responsa was publicly endorsed
by the then Chief Rabbi of Israel as 'a basic institution of the
Halakhah'.28 The
particular question asked of Ratam Sofer concerned the situation
in Turkey, where it was decreed during one of the wars that in
each township or village there should be midwives on call, ready
to hire themselves out to any woman in labor. Some of these
midwives were Jewish; should they hire themselves out to help
Gentile women on weekdays and on the sabbath?

In his Tesponsum,29
Hatam Sofer first concludes, after careful investigation, that
the Gentiles concerned - that is, Ottoman Christians and Muslims
- are not only idolators 'who definitely worship other gods and
thus should "neither be lifted [out of a well] nor hauled
down",' but are likened by him to the Amalekites, so that
the talmudic ruling 'it is forbidden to multiply the seed of
Amalek' applies to them. In principle, therefore, they should not
be helped even on week- days. However, in practice it is
'permitted' to heal Gentiles and help them in labor, if they have
doctors and midwives of their own, who could be called instead of
the Jewish ones. For if Jewish doctors and midwives refused to
attend to Gentiles, the only result would be loss of income to
the former - which is of course undesirable. This applies equally
on weekdays and on the sabbath, provided no desecration of the
sabbath is involved. However, in the latter case the sabbath can
serve as an excuse to 'mislead the heathen woman and say that it
would involve desecration of the sabbath'.

In connection with cases that do
actually involve desecration of the sabbath, Hatam Sofer - like
other authorities - makes a distinction between two categories of
work banned on the sabbath. First, there is work banned by the
Torah, the biblical text (as interpreted by the Talmud); such
work may only be performed in very exceptional cases, if failing
to do so would cause an extreme danger of hostility towards Jews.
Then there are types of work which are only banned by the sages
who extended the original law of the Torah; the attitude towards
breaking such bans is generally more lenient.

Another response of Hatam Sofer
deals with the question whether it is permissible for a Jewish
doctor to travel by carriage on the sabbath in order to heal a
Gentile. After pointing out that under certain conditions
traveling by horse-drawn carriage on the sabbath only violates a
ban imposed 'by the sages' rather than by the Torah, he goes on
to recall Maimonides' pronouncement that Gentile women in labor
must not be helped on the sabbath, even if no desecration of the
sabbath is involved, and states that the same principle applies
to all medical practice, not just midwifery. But he then voices
the fear that if this were put into practice, 'it would arouse
undesirable hostility,' for 'the Gentiles would not accept the
excuse of sabbath observance,' and 'would say that the blood of
an idolator has little worth in our eyes'. Also, perhaps more
importantly, Gentile doctors might take revenge on their Jewish
patients. Better excuses must be found. He advises a Jewish
doctor who is called to treat a Gentile patient out of town on
the sabbath to excuse himself by saying that he is required to
stay in town in order to look after his other patients, 'for he
can use this in order to say, "I cannot move because of the
danger to this or that patient, who needs a doctor first, and I
may not desert my charge"

With such an excuse there is no fear
of danger, for it is a reasonable pretext, commonly given by
doctors who are late in arriving because another patient needed
them first.' Only 'if it is impossible to give any excuse' is the
doctor permitted to travel by carriage on the sabbath in order to
treat a Gentile.

In the whole discussion, the main
issue is the excuses that should be made, not the actual healing
or the welfare of the patient. And throughout it is taken for
granted that it is all right to deceive Gentiles rather than
treat them, so long as 'hostility' can be averted.31

Of course, in modern times most
Jewish doctors are not religious and do not even know of these
rules. Moreover, it appears that even many who are religious
prefer to their credit - to abide by the Hippocratic oath rather
than by the precepts of their fanatic rabbis.32
However, the rabbis' guidance cannot fail to have some influence
on some doctors; and there are certainly many who, while not
actually following that guidance, choose not to protest against
it publicly.

All this is far from being a dead
issue. The most up-to-date halakhic position on these matters is
contained in a recent concise and authoritative book published in
English under the title Jewish Medical Law.33
This book, which bears the imprint of the prestigious Israeli
foundation Mossad Harav Kook, is based on the response of R.
Eli'ezer Yehuda Waldenberg, Chief Justice of the Rabbinical
District Court of Jerusalem. A few passages of this work deserve
special mention.

First, 'it is forbidden to desecrate
the sabbath ... for a Karaite.'34
This is stated bluntly, absolutely and without any further
qualification. Presumably the hostility of this small sect makes
no difference, so they should be allowed to die rather than be
treated on the sabbath.

As for Gentiles: 'According to the
ruling stated in the Talmud and Codes of Jewish Law, it is
forbidden to desecrate the Sabbath - whether violating Biblical
or rabbinic law - in order to save the life of a dangerously ill
gentile patient. It is also forbidden to deliver the baby of a
gentile women on the Sabbath.'35

But this is qualified by a
dispensation: 'However, today it is permitted to desecrate the
Sabbath on behalf of a Gentile by performing actions prohibited
by rabbinic law, for by so doing one prevents ill feelings from
arising between Jew and Gentile.'36

This does not go very far, because
medical treatment very often involves acts banned on the sabbath
by the Torah itself, which are not covered by this dispensation.
There are, we are told, 'some' halakhic authorities who extend
the dispensation to such acts as well - but this is just another
way of saying that most halakhic authorities, and the ones that
really count, take the opposite view. However, all is not lost.
Jewish Medical Law has a truly breathtaking solution to this
difficulty.

The solution hangs upon a nice point
of talmudic law. A ban imposed by the Torah on performing a given
act on the sabbath is presumed to apply only when the primary
intention in performing it is the actual outcome of the act. (For
example. grinding wheat is presumed to be banned by the Torah
only if the purpose is actually to obtain flour.) On the other
hand, if the performance of the same act is merely incidental to
some other purpose (melakhah seh'eynah tzrikhah legufah) then the
act changes its status - it is still forbidden, to be sure, but
only by the sages rather than by the Torah itself. Therefore: In
order to avoid any transgression of the law, there is a legally
acceptable method of rendering treatment on behalf of a gentile
patient even when dealing with violation of Biblical Law. It is
suggested that at the time that the physician is providing the
necessary care, his intentions should not primarily be to cure
the patient, but to protect himself and the Jewish people from
accusations of religious discrimination and severe retaliation
that may endanger him in particular and the Jewish people in
general. With this intention, any act on the physician's part
becomes an act whose actual outcome is not its primary purpose'
... which is forbidden on Sabbath only by rabbinic law.37

This hypocritical substitute for the
Hippocratic oath is also proposed by a recent authoritative
Hebrew book.38

Although the facts were mentioned at
least twice in the Israeli press,39
the Israeli Medical Association has remained silent.

Having treated in some detail the
supremely important subject of the attitude of the Halakhah to a
Gentile's very life, we shall deal much more briefly with other
halakhic rules which discriminate against Gentiles. Since the
number of such rules is very large, we shall mention only the
more important ones.

Sexual Offenses

SEXUAL INTERCOURSE between a married Jewish woman and
any man other than her husband is a capital offense for both
parties, and one of the three most heinous sins. The status of
Gentile women is very different. The Halakhah presumes all
Gentiles to be utterly promiscuous and the verse 'whose flesh is
as the flesh of asses, and whose issue [of semen] is like the
issue of horses'40 is applied
to them. Whether a Gentile woman is married or not makes no
difference, since as far as Jews are concerned the very concept
of matrimony does not apply to Gentiles ('There is no matrimony
for a heathen'). Therefore, the concept of adultery also does not
apply to intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman;
rather, the Talmud41
equates such intercourse to the sin of bestiality. (For the same
reason, Gentiles are generally presumed not to have certain
paternity.)

According to the Talmudic
Encyclopedia: 42 'He who
has carnal knowledge of the wife of a Gentile is not liable to
the death penalty, for it is written: "thy fellow's
wife"43 rather
than the alien's wife; and even the precept that a man
"shall cleave unto his wife"44
which is addressed to the Gentiles does not apply to a Jew, just
there is no matrimony for a heathen; and although a married
Gentile woman is forbidden to the Gentiles, in any case a Jew is
exempted.'

This does not imply that sexual
intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman is permitted
- quite the contrary. But the main punishment is inflicted on the
Gentile woman; she must be executed, even if she was raped by the
Jew: 'If a Jew has coitus with a Gentile woman, whether she be a
child of three or an adult, whether married or unmarried, and
even if he is a minor aged only nine years and one day - because
he had willful coitus with her, she must be killed, as is the
case with a beast, because through her a Jew got into trouble'45
The Jew, however, must be flogged, and if he is a Kohen (member
of the priestly tribe) he must receive double the number of
lashes, because he has committed a double offense: a Kohen must
not have intercourse with a prostitute, and all Gentile women are
presumed to be prostitutes.46

Status

ACCORDING TO THE HALAKHAH, Jews must not (if they can
help it) allow a Gentile to be appointed to any position of
authority, however small, over Jews. (The two stock examples are
commander over ten soldiers in the Jewish army' and
'superintendent of an irrigation ditch'.) Significantly, this
particular rule applies also to converts to Judaism and to their
descendants (through the female line) for ten generations or 'so
long as the descent is known'.

Gentiles are presumed to be
congenital liars, and are disqualified from testifying in a
rabbinical court. In this respect their position is, in theory,
the same as that of Jewish women, slaves and minors; but in
practice it is actually worse. A Jewish woman is nowadays
admitted as a witness to certain matters of fact, when the
rabbinical court 'believes' her; a Gentile - never.

A problem therefore arises when a
rabbinical court needs to establish a fact for which there are
only Gentile witnesses. An important example of this is in cases
concerning widows: by Jewish religious law, a woman can be
declared a widow - and hence free to remarry - only if the death
of her husband is proven with certainty by means of a witness who
saw him die or identified his corpse. However, the rabbinical
court will accept the hearsay evidence of a Jew who testifies to
having heard the fact in question mentioned by a Gentile
eyewitness, provided the court is satisfied that the latter was
speaking casually ('goy mesiah left tummd) rather than in reply
to a direct question; for a Gentile's direct answer to a Jew's
direct question is presumed to be a lie.47
If necessary, a Jew (preferably a rabbi) will actually undertake
to chat up the Gentile eyewitness and, without asking a direct
question, extract from him a casual statement of the fact at
issue.

Money and Property

(1) Gifts. The Talmud bluntly forbids giving a gift to
a Gentile. However, classical rabbinical authorities bent this
rule because it is customary among businessmen to give gifts to
business contacts. It was therefore laid down that a Jew may give
a gift to a Gentile acquaintance, since this is regarded not as a
true gift but as a sort of investment, for which some return is
expected. Gifts to 'unfamiliar Gentiles' remain forbidden. A
broadly similar rule applies to almsgiving. Giving alms to a
Jewish beggar is an important religious duty. Alms to Gentile
beggars are merely permitted for the sake of peace. However there
are numerous rabbinical warnings against allowing the Gentile
poor to become 'accustomed' to receiving alms from Jews, so that
it should be possible to withhold such alms without arousing
undue hostility.

(2) Taking of interest. Anti-Gentile discrimination in
this matter has become largely theoretical, in view of the
dispensation (explained in Chapter 3) which in effect allows
interest to be exacted even from a Jewish borrower. However, it
is still the case that granting an interest-free loan to a Jew is
recommended as an act of charity, but from a Gentile borrower it
is mandatory to exact interest. In fact, many - though not all -
rabbinical authorities, including Maimonides, consider it
mandatory to exact as much usury as possible on a loan to a
Gentile.

(3) Lost property. If a Jew finds property whose
probable owner is Jewish, the finder is strictly enjoined to make
a positive effort to return his find by advertising it publicly.
In contrast, the Talmud and all the early rabbinical authorities
not only allow a Jewish finder to appropriate an article lost by
a Gentile, but actually forbid him or her to return it.48
In more recent times, when laws were passed in most countries
making it mandatory to return lost articles, the rabbinical
authorities instructed Jews to do what these laws say, as an act
of civil obedience to the state - but not as a religious duty,
that is without making a positive effort to discover the owner if
it is not probable that he is Jewish.

(4) Deception in business. It is a grave sin to
practice any kind of deception whatsoever against a Jew. Against
a Gentile it is only forbidden to practice direct deception.
Indirect deception is allowed, unless it is likely to cause
hostility towards Jews or insult to the Jewish religion. The
paradigmatic example is mistaken calculation of the price during
purchase. If a Jew makes a mistake unfavorable to himself, it is
one's religious duty to correct him. If a Gentile is spotted
making such a mistake, one need not let him know about it, but
say 'I rely on your calculation', so as to forestall his
hostility in case he subsequently discovers his own mistake.

(5) Fraud. It is forbidden to defraud a Jew by selling
or buying at an unreasonable price. However, 'Fraud does not
apply to Gentiles, for it is written: "Do not defraud each
man his brother";49
but a Gentile who defrauds a Jew should be compelled to make good
the fraud, but should not be punished more severely than a Jew
[in a similar case].'50

(6) Theft and robbery. Stealing (without violence) is
absolutely forbidden - as the Shulhan 'Arukh so nicely puts it:
'even from a Gentile'. Robbery (with violence) is strictly
forbidden if the victim is Jewish. However, robbery of a Gentile
by a Jew is not forbidden outright but only under certain
circumstances such as 'when the Gentiles are not under our rule',
but is permitted 'when they are under our rule'. Rabbinical
authorities differ among themselves as to the precise details of
the circumstances under which a Jew may rob a Gentile, but the
whole debate is concerned only with the relative power of Jews
and Gentiles rather than with universal considerations of justice
and humanity. This may explain why so very few rabbis have
protested against the robbery of Palestinian property in Israel:
it was backed by overwhelming Jewish power.

Gentiles in the Land of lsrael

IN ADDITION TO THE GENERAL anti-Gentile laws, the
Halakhah has special laws against Gentiles who live in the Land
of Israel (Eretz Yisra'el) or, in some cases, merely pass through
it. These laws are designed to promote Jewish supremacy in that
country.

The exact geographical definition of
the term 'Land of Israel' is much disputed in the Talmud and the
talmudic literature, and the debate has continued in modern times
between the various shades of zionist opinion. According to the
maximalist view, the Land of Israel includes (in addition to
Palestine itself) not only the whole of Sinai, Jordan, Syria and
Lebanon, but also considerable parts of Turkey.51
The more prevalent 'minimalist' interpretation puts the northern
border 'only' about half way through Syria and Lebanon, at the
latitude of Homs. This view was supported by Ben Gurion. However,
even those who thus exclude parts of Syria-Lebanon agree that
certain special discriminatory laws (though less oppressive than
in the Land of Israel proper) apply to the Gentiles of those
parts, because that territory was included in David's kingdom. In
all talmudic interpretations the Land of Israel includes Cyprus.

I shall now list a few of the
special laws concerning Gentiles in the Land of Israel. Their
connection with actual zionist practice will be quite apparent.

The Halakhah forbids Jews to sell
immovable property - fields and houses - in the Land of Israel to
Gentiles. In Syria, the sale of houses (but not of fields) is
permitted.

Leasing a house in the Land of
Israel to a Gentile is permitted under two conditions. First,
that the house shall not be used for habitation but for other
purposes, such as storage. Second, that three or more adjoining
houses shall not be so leased.

These and several other rules are
explained as follows: ... 'so that you shall not allow them to
camp on the ground, for if they do not possess land, their
sojourn there will be temporary.'52
Even temporary Gentile presence may only be tolerated 'when the
Jews are in exile, or when the Gentiles are more powerful than
the Jews,' but when the Jews are more powerful than the Gentiles
we are forbidden to let an idolator among us; even a temporary
resident or itinerant trader shall not be allowed to pass through
our land unless he accepts the seven Noahide precepts,53
for it is written: 'they shall not dwell in thy land'54
that is, not even temporarily. If he accepts the seven Noahide
precepts, he becomes a resident alien (ger
toshav) but it is forbidden to grant the
status of resident alien except at times when the Jubilee is held
[that is, when the Temple stands and sacrifices are offered].
However, during times when Jubilees are not held it is forbidden
to accept anyone who is not a full convert to Judaism (ger
tzedeq).55

It is therefore clear that - exactly
as the leaders and sympathizers of Gush Emunim say - the whole
question to how the Palestinians ought to be treated is,
according to the Halakhah, simply a question of Jewish power:
if Jews have sufficient power, then it is their religious duty to
expel the Palestinians.

All these laws are often quoted by
Israeli rabbis and their zealous followers. For example, the law
forbidding the lease of three adjoining houses to Gentiles was
solemnly quoted by a rabbinical conference held in 1979 to
discuss the Camp David treaties. The conference also declared
that according to the Halakhah even the 'autonomy' that Begin was
ready to offer to the Palestinians is too liberal. Such
pronouncements - which do in fact state correctly the position of
the Halakhah - are rarely contested by the Zionist 'left'.

In addition to laws such as those
mentioned so far, which are directed at all Gentiles in the Land
of Israel, an even greater evil influence arises from special
laws against the ancient Canaanites and other nations who lived
in Palestine before its conquest by Joshua, as well as against
the Amalekites. All those nations must be utterly exterminated,
and the Talmud and talmudic literature reiterate the genocidal
biblical exhortations with even greater vehemence. Influential
rabbis, who have a considerable following among Israeli army
officers, identify the Palestinians (or even all Arabs) with
those ancient nations, so that commands like 'thou shalt save
alive nothing that breatheth'56
acquire a topical meaning. In fact, it is not uncommon for
reserve soldiers called up to do a tour of duty in the Gaza Strip
to be given an 'educational lecture' in which they are told that
the Palestinians of Gaza are 'like the Amalekites'. Biblical
verses exhorting to genocide of the Midianite57
were solemnly quoted by an important Israeli rabbi in
justification of the Qibbiya massacre,58
and this pronouncement has gained wide circulation in the Israeli
army. There are many similar examples of bloodthirsty rabbinical
pronouncements against the Palestinians, based on these laws.

Abuse

UNDER THIS HEADING I would like to discuss examples of
halakhic laws whose most important effect is not so much to
prescribe specific anti-Gentile discrimination as to inculcate an
attitude of scorn and hatred towards Gentiles. Accordingly. in
this section I shall not confine myself to quoting from the most
authoritative halakhic sources (as I have done so far) but
include also less fundamental works, which are however widely
used in religious instruction.

Let us begin with the text of some
common prayers. In one of
the first sections of the daily morning payer, every devout Jew
blesses God for not making him a Gentile.59
The concluding section of the daily prayer (which is also used in
the most solemn part of the service on New Year's day and on Yom
Kippur) opens with the statement: 'We must praise the Lord of all
... for not making us like the nations of [all] lands ... for
they bow down to vanity and nothingness and pray to a god that
does not help.'60 The last
clause was censored out of the prayer books. but in eastern
Europe it was supplied orally, and has now been restored into
many Israeli-printed prayer books. In the most important section
of the weekday prayer - the 'eighteen blessings' - there is a
special curse, originally directed against Christians, Jewish
converts to Christianity and other Jewish heretics: 'And may the
apostates'61 have no
hope, and all the Christians perish instantly'. This formula
dates from the end of the 1st century, when Christianity was
still a small persecuted sect. Some time before the 14th century
it was softened into: 'And may the apostates have no hope. and
all the heretics62 perish
instantly', and after additional pressure into: 'And may the
informers have no hope, and all the heretics perish instantly'.
After the establishment of Israel. the process was reversed, and
many newly printed prayer books reverted to the second formula,
which was also prescribed by many teachers in religious Israeli
schools. After 1967, several congregations close to Gush Emunim
have restored the first version (so far only verbally, not in
print) and now pray daily that the Christians may perish
instantly'. This process of reversion happened in the period when
the Catholic Church (under Pope John XXIII) removed from its Good
Friday service a prayer which asked the Lord to have mercy on
Jews, heretics etc. This prayer was thought by most Jewish
leaders to be offensive and even antisemitic.

Apart from the fixed daily prayers, a devout Jew must utter
special short blessings on various occasions, both good and bad
(for example, while putting on a new piece of clothing. eating a
seasonal fruit for the first time that year, seeing powerful
lightning, hearing bad news, etc.) Some of these occasional
prayers serve to inculcate hatred and scorn for all Gentiles, We
have mentioned in Chapter 2 the rule according to which a pious
Jew must utter a curse when passing near a Gentile cemetery,
whereas he must bless God when passing near a Jewish cemetery. A
similar rule applies to the living; thus, when seeing a large
Jewish population a devout Jew must praise God, while upon seeing
a large Gentile population he must utter a curse. Nor are
buildings exempt: the Talmud lays down63
that a Jew who passes near an inhabited non-Jewish dwelling must
ask God to destroy it, whereas if the building is in ruins he
must thank the Lord of Vengeance. (Naturally, the rules are
reversed for Jewish houses.) This rule was easy to keep for
Jewish peasants who lived in their own villages or for small
urban communities living in all-Jewish townships or quarters.
Under the conditions of classical Judaism, however, it became
impracticable and was therefore confined to churches and places
of worship of other religions (except Islam).64
In this connection, the rule was further embroidered by custom:
it became customary to spit (usually three times) upon seeing a
church or a crucifix, as an embellishment to the obligatory
formula of regret.65 Sometimes
insulting biblical verses were also added.66

There is also a series of rules
forbidding any expression of praise for Gentiles or for their
deeds, except where such praise implies an even greater praise of
Jews and things Jewish. This rule is still observed by Orthodox
Jews. For example. the writer Agnon, when interviewed on the
Israeli radio upon his return from Stockholm, where he received
the Nobel Prize for literature, praised the Swedish Academy, but
hastened to add: 'I am not forgetting that it is forbidden to
praise Gentiles, but here there is a special reason for my
praise' - that is, that they awarded the prize to a Jew.

Similarly, it is forbidden to join
any manifestation of popular Gentile rejoicing, except where
failing to join in might cause 'hostility' towards Jews, in which
case a 'minimal' show of joy is allowed.

In addition to the rules mentioned
so far, there are many others whose effect is to inhibit human
friendship between Jew and Gentile. I shall mention two examples:
the rule on 'libation wine' and that on preparing food for a
Gentile on Jewish holy days.

A religious Jew must not drink any
wine in whose preparation a Gentile had any part whatsoever. Wine
in an open bottle, even if prepared wholly by Jews, becomes
banned if a Gentile so much as touches the bottle or passes a
hand over it. The reason given by the rabbis is that all Gentiles
are not only idolators but must be presumed to be malicious to
boot, so that they are likely to dedicate (by a whisper, gesture
or thought) as 'libation' to their idol any wine which a Jew is
about to drink. This law applies in full force to all Christians,
and in a slightly attenuated form also to Muslims. (An open
bottle of wine touched by a Christian must be poured away, but if
touched by a Muslim it can be sold or given away, although it may
not be drunk by a Jew.) The law applies equally to Gentile
atheists (how can one be sure that they are not merely pretending
to be atheists?) but not to Jewish atheists.

The laws against doing work on the
sabbath apply to a lesser extent on other holy days. In
particular, on a holy day which does not happen to fall on a
Saturday it is permitted to do any work required for preparing
food to be eaten during the holy days or days. Legally, this is
defined as preparing a 'soul's food' (okhel nefesh); but 'soul'
is interpreted to mean 'Jew', and 'Gentiles and dogs' are
explicitly excluded.67 There is,
however, a dispensation in favor of powerful Gentiles, whose
hostility can be dangerous: it is permitted to cook food on a
holy day for a visitor belonging to this category, provided he is
not actively encouraged to come and eat.

An important effect of all these
laws - quite apart from their application in practice - is in the
attitude created by their constant study which, as part of the
study of the Halakhah, is regarded by classical Judaism as a
supreme religious duty. Thus
an Orthodox Jew learns from his earliest youth, as part of his
sacred studies, that Gentiles are compared to dogs, that it is a
sin to praise them, and so on and so forth. As
a matter of fact, in this respect textbooks for beginners have a
worse effect than the Talmud and the great talmudic codes. One
reason for this is that such elementary texts give more detailed
explanations, phrased so as to influence young and uneducated
minds. Out of a large number of such texts, I have chosen the one
which is currently most popular in Israel and has been reprinted
in many cheap editions, heavily subsidized by the Israeli
government. It is The Book of Education, written by an anonymous
rabbi in early 14th century Spain. It explains the 613 religious
obligations (mitzvot) of Judaism in the order in which they are
supposed to be found in the Pentateuch according to the talmudic
interpretation (discussed in Chapter 3). It owes its lasting
influence and popularity to the clear and easy Hebrew style in
which it is written.

A central didactic aim of this book
is to emphasize the 'correct' meaning of the Bible with respect
to such terms as 'fellow', 'friend' or 'man' (which we have
referred to in Chapter 3). Thus §219, devoted to the religious
obligation arising from the verse 'thou shalt love thy fellow as
thyself', is entitled: 'A religious obligation to love Jews', and
explains:

To love every Jew strongly means
that we should care for a Jew and his money just as one cares for
oneself and one's own money, for it is written: 'thou shalt love
thy fellow as thyself' and our sages of blessed memory said:
'what is hateful to you do not do to your friend' ... and many
other religious obligations follow from this, because one who
loves one's friend as oneself will not steal his money, or commit
adultery with his wife, or defraud him of his money, or deceive
him verbally, or steal his land, or harm him in any way. Also
many other religious obligations depend on this, as is known to
any reasonable man.

In §322, dealing with the duty to
keep a Gentile slave enslaved for ever (whereas a Jewish slave
must be set free after seven years), the following explanation is
given:

And at the root of this religious
obligation [is the fact that] the Jewish people are the best of
the human species, created to know their Creator and worship Him,
and worthy of having slaves to serve them. And if they will not
have slaves of other peoples, they would have to enslave their
brothers, who would thus be unable to serve the Lord, blessed be
He. Therefore we are commanded to possess those for our service,
after they are prepared for this and after idolatory is removed
from their speech so that there should not be danger in our
houses,68 and this
is the intention of the verse 'but over your brethren the
children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with
rigor',69 so that
you will not have to enslave your brothers, who are all ready to
worship God.

In §545, dealing with the religious
obligation to exact interest on money lent to Gentiles, the law
is stated as follows: 'That we are commanded to demand interest
from Gentiles when we lend money to them, and we must not lend to
them without interest,' The explanation is:

And at the root of this religious
obligation is that we should not do any act of mercy except to
the people who know God and worship Him; and when we refrain from
doing merciful deed to the rest of mankind and do so only to the
former, we are being tested that the main part of love and mercy
to them is because they follow the religion of God, blessed be
He. Behold, with this intention our reward [from God] when we
withhold mercy from the others is equal to that for doing
[merciful deeds] to members of our own people.

Similar distinctions are made in
numerous other passages. In explaining the ban against delaying a
worker's wage (§238) the author is careful to point out that the
sin is less serious if the worker is Gentile. The prohibition
against cursing (§239) is entitled 'Not to curse any Jew,
whether man or woman. Similarly, the prohibitions against giving
misleading advice, hating other people, shaming them or taking
revenge on them (§§240, 245, 246, 247) apply only to
fellow-Jews.

The ban against following Gentile
customs (§262) means that Jews must not only 'remove themselves'
from Gentiles, but also 'speak ill of all their behavior, even of
their dress'.

It must be emphasized that the
explanations quoted above do represent correctly the teaching of
the Halakhah. The rabbis and, even worse, the apologetic
'scholars of Judaism' know this very well and for this reason
they do not try to argue against such views inside the Jewish
community; and of course they never mention them outside it.
Instead, they vilify any Jew who raises these matters within
earshot of Gentiles, and they issue deceitful denials in which
the art of equivocation reaches its summit. For example, they
state, using general terms, the importance which Judaism attaches
to mercy; but what they forget to point out is that according to
the Halakhah 'mercy' means mercy towards Jews.

Anyone
who lives in Israel knows how deep and widespread these attitudes
of hatred and cruelty to towards all Gentiles are among the
majority of Israeli Jews. Normally these
attitudes are disguised from the outside world, but since the
establishment of the State of Israel, the 1967 war and the rise
of Begin, a significant minority of Jews, both in Israel and
abroad, have gradually become more open about such matters. In
recent years the inhuman precepts according to which servitude is
the 'natural' lot of Gentiles have been publicly quoted in
Israel, even on TV, by Jewish farmers exploiting Arab labor,
particularly child labor. Gush Emunim leaders have quoted
religious precepts which enjoin Jews to oppress Gentiles, as a
justification of the attempted assassination of Palestinian
mayors and as divine authority for their own plan to expel all
the Arabs from Palestine.

While many zionists reject these
positions politically, their standard counter-arguments are based
on considerations of expediency and Jewish self-interest, rather
than on universally valid principles of humanism and ethics. For
example, they argue that the exploitation and oppression of
Palestinians by Israelis tends to corrupt Israeli society, or
that the expulsion of the Palestinians is impracticable under
present political conditions, or that Israeli acts of terror
against the Palestinians tend to isolate Israel internationally.
In principle, however, virtually all zionists - and in particular
'left' zionists - share the deep anti-Gentile attitudes which
Orthodox Judaism keenly promotes.

Attitudes to Christianity and Islam

IN THE FOREGOING, several examples of the rabbinical
attitudes to these two religions were given in passing. But it
will be useful to summarize these attitudes here.

Judaism
is imbued with a very deep hatred towards Christianity, combined
with ignorance about it. This attitude was clearly aggravated by
the Christian persecutions of Jews, but is largely independent of
them. In fact, it dates from the time when Christianity was still
weak and persecuted (not least by Jews), and it was shared by
Jews who had never been persecuted by Christians or who were even
helped by them. Thus, Maimonides was
subjected to Muslim persecutions by the regime of the Almohads
and escaped from them first to the crusaders' Kingdom of
Jerusalem, but this did not change his views in the least. This
deeply negative attitude is based on two main elements.

First, on hatred and malicious
slanders against Jesus. The traditional view of Judaism on Jesus
must of course be sharply distinguished from the nonsensical
controversy between antisemites and Jewish apologists concerning
the 'responsibility' for his execution. Most modern scholars of
that period admit that due to the lack of original and
contemporary accounts, the late composition of the Gospels and
the contradictions between them, accurate historical knowledge of
the circumstances of Jesus' execution is not available. In any
case, the notion of collective and inherited guilt is both wicked
and absurd. However, what is at issue here is not the actual
facts about Jesus, but the inaccurate and even slanderous reports
in the Talmud and post-talmudic literature - which is what Jews
believed until the 19th century and many, especially in Israel,
still believe. For these reports certainly played an important
role in forming the Jewish attitude to Christianity.

According to the Talmud, Jesus was
executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting
other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All
classical Jewish sources which mention his execution are quite
happy to take responsibility for it; in the talmudic account the
Romans are not even mentioned.

The more popular accounts - which
were nevertheless taken quite seriously - such as the notorious
Toldot Yesbu are even worse, for in addition to the above crimes
they accuse him of witchcraft. The very name 'Jesus' was for Jews
a symbol of all that is abominable, and this popular tradition
still persists.70 The
Gospels are equally detested, and they are not allowed to be
quoted (let alone taught) even in modern Israeli Jewish schools.

Secondly, for theological reasons,
mostly rooted in ignorance, Christianity as a religion is classed
by rabbinical teaching as idolatry. This is based on a crude
interpretation of the Christian doctrines on the Trinity and
Incarnation. All the Christian emblems and pictorial
representations are regarded as 'idols' - even by those Jews who
literally worship scrolls, stones or personal belongings of 'Holy
Men'.

The attitude of Judaism towards
Islam is, in contrast, relatively mild. Although the stock
epithet given to Muhammad is 'madman' ('meshugga'), this was not
nearly as offensive as it may sound now, and in any case it pales
before the abusive terms applied to Jesus. Similarly, the Qur'an
- unlike the New Testament - is not condemned to burning. It is
not honored in the same way as Islamic law honors the Jewish
sacred scrolls, but is treated as an ordinary book. Most
rabbinical authorities agree that Islam is not idolatry (although
some leaders of Gush Emunim now choose to ignore this). Therefore
the Halakhah decrees that Muslims should not be treated by Jews
any worse than 'ordinary' Gentiles. But also no better. Again,
Maimonides can serve as an illustration. He explicitly states
that Islam is not idolatry, and in his philosophical works he
quotes, with great respect, many Islamic philosophical
authorities. He was, as I have mentioned before, personal
physician to Saladin and his family, and by Saladin's order he
was appointed Chief over all Egypt's Jews. Yet, the rules he lays
down against saving a Gentile's life (except in order to avert
danger to Jews) apply equally to Muslims. jewhist5.htmPrevious PageNext Page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE:

This material is displayed for educational purposes and uses only. To this end, copies may be made for personal use, but anything beyond that
will require permission from the author and publisher as listed below.

We see the act of displaying a written document on Internet as the equivalent to displaying it on the shelves of a public library. It costs us a modicum of labor and money. The only benefit accrues to the reader who, we surmise, thinks by himself. A reader looks for a document on the Web at his or her own risks. As for the author, there is no reason to suppose that he or she shares any responsibilty for other writings displayed on this Site. Because laws enforcing a specific censorship on some historical question apply in various countries (Germany, France, Israel, Switzerland, Canada, and others) we do not ask their permission from authors living in thoses places: they wouldn't have the freedom to consent.

We believe we are protected by the Human Rights Charter:
ARTICLE 19. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, in Paris.